Andhra Pradesh Court July 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Nallala Ram Reddy S/O Sanjeeva Reddy Vs. the Commissioner, Prohibition ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD529; 2008(6)ALT307
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the order dated 2.0.11.2002 in proceedings Cr. No. 2928/2001/CPE/D4 passed by the first respondent whereby confirming the order dated 30.05.2001 in proceedings Cr. No. 1775/96/P& E/B5 passed by the second respondent as illegal and arbitrary.2. Petitioner submits that he is the owner of the car bearing No. AP16 E 2556 and on 25.07.1996, at about 16.40 hours the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanamkonda/third respondent intercepted the car and seized the same on the allegation that the said car was found transporting 30 full bottles of Indian Liquor in contravention of Section 8(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 (for short 'the Prohibition Act'). The police conducted panchanama before the mediators and seized the car along with the contraband and arrested him. Based on the said panchanama report a case is Cr. No. 173 of 1996 dated 25.07.1996 was registered for violation of Section 8(a) & (b) of the Prohibition ...
The Andhra Pradesh Federation of Chit Funds, a Public Society Rep. by ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(AP)28; (2008)17VST128(AP)
ORDERB. Prakash Rao , J.1. Since all these writ petitions involve common questions, they are being taken up together for disposal.2. The petitioners herein include many of the chit fund companies and a registered Federation of Chit Funds, of which those companies are members. In the writ petitions, the petitioners sought for a mandamus and assailing the correctness of circular No. 96/7/2007-ST (Circular No. 034-04) dated 23.8.2007 and proceedings No. HAST 141/2007 dated 18.12.2007 issued by the second respondent as being violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India and Section 65(12) read with Section 65(105)(zm) of the Finance Act, 1994 and to set aside the same. The case of the petitioners is that they are doing business in chit funds, the transactions of which are clearly covered by the provisions of the A.P. Chit Funds Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder. According to them, very nature of transaction stands quite apart. In support, the petitioners refe...
Gannamaneni Veerraju and anr. Vs. Gannamaneni Udaya Bhaskara Rao and a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD284; 2009(5)ALT95
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. On 23.2.2007, this civil revision petition was admitted and in CRP MP No. 1096 of 2007, interim suspension was granted.2. Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondents, filed CRP MP No. 2214 of 2008 to vacate the aforesaid interim order. Though the matter is coming up under the caption 'interlocutory', both the learned Counsel, Sri T. Durga Prasad Rao, representing the revision petitioners, and Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondents, made a request for disposal of the main revision petition itself.3. Sri T. Durga Prasad Rao, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners, would maintain that the appellate Court had not properly appreciated the respective pleadings of the parties and come to an erroneous conclusion, while granting temporary injunction in a mandatory form. The learned Counsel also would maintain that it may be true that even temporary injunction can be granted in a mandatory form in exceptional ...
Siluveru Lakshmamma Vs. Siluveru Sankaraiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD322; 2008(5)ALT211
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered notice before admission on 23.4.2008 and granted interim stay for a limited period, which is being extended from time to time.2. Sri K. Somakonda Reddy, learned Counsel, entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and at the request of the learned Counsel on record, this C.R.P., is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.3. Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, would maintain that the amendment which had been prayed for in the plaint is only ancillary to the main relief prayed for in the suit. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the Court below should have appreciated that the suit is filed for cancellation of gift deeds obtained by the defendants 1 and 2 by playing fraud, and consequential relief of possession, the amendment sought to be introduced would neither change the nature of the suit nor if allowed, would cause any prejudice at all. The learned Counsel further would maintain that...
B.K.S.R. Krishna Murthy Vs. B. Kutumba Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD464
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the Counsel on record.2. On 1.9.2006, this Court made the following order:Admit on the questions framed in grounds 2(c), (g), (h) and (i) of the Memorandum of appeal.The second appeal be processed and listed for hearing at its own turn.3. The substantial questions of law framed in grounds 2(c), (g), (h) and (i) of the Memorandum of appeal read as hereunder:(c) Whether the judgments of the Courts below satisfy the requirements of Order XX C.P.C., thus, vitiating the entire proceedings?(g) Whether a suit can be decreed even without any evidence, discussion and the finding regarding the title and quantum of mesne profits?(h) Whether the first appellate Court is not required to discuss and render finding independently on each of the issues?(i) Whether the first appellate Court is not required to frame points for consideration on the issues and then render its finding on each of the points/issues by discussing the pleadings and the evidence independently?4. Sri J. ...
Adams Memorial Educational and Welfare Society Vs. Soma Vijay Prakash ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD683
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner aggrieved by the order, dated 19.3,2008, made in LA. No. 25 of 2008 in I.A. No. 1327 of 2006 in O.S. No. 1 of 2006 on the file of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. It is no doubt stated that yet another application, being I.A. No. 224 of 2008, was filed to condone the delay, and both the applications, I.A. Nos. 224 and 225 of 2008 in I.A. No. 1327 of 2006 in O.S. No. 1 of 2006, had been disposed of by a common order, dated 19.3.2008, and it is stated there is connected CRP No. 2152 of 2008, pending at the stage of admission. It is needless to say that the result of the said CRP would also depend on the order to be made in the present CRP.3. Sri Suryanarayana, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents, would maintain that inasmuch as the revision petitioner is in huge arrears and in view of the interim stay granted by this Court, the respondents-plaintiffs are put ...
K. Venkateswara Rao Vs. Regional Manager, Apsrtc and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD769
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is employed as a Driver, in the Jaggaiahpet Depot of APSRTC. On 25.1.2006, the Depot Manager the 3rd respondent herein, directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Officer, Vijayawada, to undergo periodical medical examination. Petitioner states that he appeared before the Medical Officer, on the appointed day, at 9 a.m., and since there were 14 persons, he waited for his turn, which fell after lunch. The petitioner said to have been called by the Medical Officer at 3 p.m., and asked whether the petitioner had consumed alcohol, and when the petitioner replied in negative, he was asked to go out and come after some time. When the petitioner went to the Medical Officer, after some time, he is said to have endorsed on the reverse of the report that the petitioner had taken alcohol, and in that view of the matter, medical test was not conducted.2. The 3rd respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, by issuing a...
Mohammed Mahmood Ali Vs. Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALD668; 2008(5)ALT797
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri K. Narasimha Rao representing Sri Syed Naimullah Shakeel, the Counsel representing revision petitioner.2. Respondents had been served and proof of service had been filed. None represents the respondents.3. Sri K. Narasimha Rao, the learned Counsel representing revision petitioner would maintain that no doubt an application for appointment of Commissioner was made in IA No. 26/2006 in OS No. 146/2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet, but at that time, respondents 2 and 3 were not parties and inasmuch as liberty was given to move appropriate application after impleading those parties, at the appropriate stage this application was filed and hence, there is no bar to maintain the present application. The learned Counsel also would maintain that in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, inasmuch as, this is a boundary dispute as to the identity of the private land and the adjacent Government land, unless a Commissioner is appoi...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Prakash Arts
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: (2008)18VST39(AP)
ORDERB. Prakash Rao, J.1. The State filed this revision under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act assailing the correctness of the judgment in T.A. No. 526 of 1996 dated November 4, 1996 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, A.P., at Hyderabad.2. Few facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent herein is sought to be levied with sales tax for disputed turnover which pertains to the business as a dealer in leasing out the advertisement boards. The respondent claims that the gross turnover of Rs. 1,57,84,590 for the year 1992-93 and Rs. 1,94,10,990 for the year 1993-94 was claimed as exemption on the ground that at various places leases of landed property were taken and the customer is paying the hire charges on such boards, that the municipality has erected the hoardings and the said hoardings are being let out by the dealer to various parties for a consideration. Initially, the Commercial Tax Officer held that there was no sale ...
Yenneti Srinivas Vs. Pula Varada Raj Kumar and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALD561
ORDERG.V. Seethapathy, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respondents. None appears for the petitioner. Perused the record.2. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 22.9.2006 passed in EA No. 56 of 2006 in OS No. 159 of 2002. on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, wherein the said application filed by the revision petitioner seeking to order ratable distribution of the amounts between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 :rein was dismissed.3. The petitioner and 1st respondent are said to have obtained the decrees against the 2nd respondent. The petitioner obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in OS No. 143 of 2002 and in execution for the said decree, he filed EP No. 43 of 2003 in order to bring the property of the 2nd respondent to sale. According to him, he came to know that the 1st respondent filed the present suit OS No. 159 of 2002 against the 2nd respondent and obtained a decree and brought an amount of Rs. 5,19,996/- to the cre...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »